Delegated RERA powers upheld as single-member adjudication and refund with interest for delayed possession sustained.

Under the U.P. RERA framework, delegation of the Authority's powers under Section 81 was treated as sufficient to authorise a single member to hear and decide complaints, so the jurisdictional challenge failed. The article also notes that where the allottee had paid consideration but possession was not delivered for years, the promoter could not retain the buyer's money indefinitely and a refund with interest was justified under the Act and the agreement terms. The challenge to the interest rate and the ex parte nature of the proceedings was rejected, and the regulatory directions were sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a single member of the U.P. Real Estate Regulatory Authority could validly decide the complaint by virtue of delegated powers under the Act. (ii) Whether the promoter was liable to refund the amount deposited by the allottee with interest for failure to deliver possession of the flat.

Issue (i): Whether a single member of the U.P. Real Estate Regulatory Authority could validly decide the complaint by virtue of delegated powers under the Act.

Analysis: The statutory scheme permits delegation of the Authority's powers and functions. The material on record showed that the Authority had, by resolution in its meeting, delegated hearing and decision-making powers to a single member for the relevant benches. The challenge based on Section 21 was rejected as misconceived, because the Court treated the delegation under Section 81 as sufficient to authorize the single-member adjudication.

Conclusion: The challenge to jurisdiction failed and the single-member order was held to be valid.

Issue (ii): Whether the promoter was liable to refund the amount deposited by the allottee with interest for failure to deliver possession of the flat.

Analysis: The allottee had paid the consideration, but possession had not been delivered for years. Applying the liability provisions under the Act and the agreement clause governing interest, the Court held that the promoter could not retain the purchaser's money indefinitely and that the regulatory direction for refund with interest was justified. The challenge to the rate of interest and the ex parte character of the proceedings was also rejected.

Conclusion: The refund direction with interest was upheld and the substantive relief remained against the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition failed on merits, and the regulatory and recovery actions were sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the Authority validly delegates its functions under the RERA framework, a single member may decide the complaint, and a promoter who fails to hand over possession must refund the buyer's money with applicable interest under the statutory regime and the agreement terms.

---